aslakhellesoy/webbit — comment on commit 15f89e85f1f27619f342f2d1099f4c9f77c17dc8
File:  line 0
By osi:

ah, I always assumed they were sync. I'd vote for making them sync first, and if that's objectionable returning a future clarifies existing behavior

--
peter royal - (on the go)

On Feb 5, 2012, at 1:36 PM, Joe Walnes wrote:

> Currently start() and stop() are async, but it's tricky to know when
> they've completed - hence the Future.
>
> Is your suggestion to make start() and stop() blocking sync methods
> instead? That would certainly be simpler.
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 11:59 AM, peter royal
>
> wrote:
>> what's the use case for async start and stop?
>>
>> fwiw I think making them return futures will be very counter-intuitive.
>>
>> --
>> peter royal - (on the go)
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Joe Walnes wrote:
>>
>>> LGTM
>>>
>>> Can you make this change very clear in the release notes, as a lot of people use the pattern: WebServer server = create(..).add(...).start();
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
>>> https://github.com/aslakhellesoy/webbit/commit/15f89e85f1f27619f342f2d1099f4c9f77c17dc8#commitcomment-934499
>>
>> ---
>> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
>> https://github.com/aslakhellesoy/webbit/commit/15f89e85f1f27619f342f2d1099f4c9f77c17dc8#commitcomment-934500
>
> ---
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> https://github.com/aslakhellesoy/webbit/commit/15f89e85f1f27619f342f2d1099f4c9f77c17dc8#commitcomment-934629